U.S. patent application number 16/421717 was filed with the patent office on 2020-11-26 for consistency enforcement in multi-author documents.
This patent application is currently assigned to International Business Machines Corporation. The applicant listed for this patent is International Business Machines Corporation. Invention is credited to ANIL MADDIPATLA, AMIT NANAVATI, BIRGIT MONIKA PFITZMANN.
Application Number | 20200372102 16/421717 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 1000004139714 |
Filed Date | 2020-11-26 |
![](/patent/app/20200372102/US20200372102A1-20201126-D00000.png)
![](/patent/app/20200372102/US20200372102A1-20201126-D00001.png)
![](/patent/app/20200372102/US20200372102A1-20201126-D00002.png)
![](/patent/app/20200372102/US20200372102A1-20201126-D00003.png)
![](/patent/app/20200372102/US20200372102A1-20201126-D00004.png)
![](/patent/app/20200372102/US20200372102A1-20201126-D00005.png)
![](/patent/app/20200372102/US20200372102A1-20201126-D00006.png)
![](/patent/app/20200372102/US20200372102A1-20201126-D00007.png)
![](/patent/app/20200372102/US20200372102A1-20201126-D00008.png)
![](/patent/app/20200372102/US20200372102A1-20201126-D00009.png)
United States Patent
Application |
20200372102 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
NANAVATI; AMIT ; et
al. |
November 26, 2020 |
CONSISTENCY ENFORCEMENT IN MULTI-AUTHOR DOCUMENTS
Abstract
A parameter of a first checker in a profile of the first checker
is configured. The parameter comprises a restriction on contents of
a modification to a dataset. The modification comprises a write to
a portion of the dataset. The dataset is modifiable by a plurality
of authors. The first checker has a first checker owner. A first
modification to the dataset is validated against a restriction
enforced by the first checker according to the parameter. The first
modification has a modification owner. Responsive to the validating
detecting that the first modification is acceptable, the first
modification is allowed.
Inventors: |
NANAVATI; AMIT; (New Delhi,
IN) ; MADDIPATLA; ANIL; (Hyderabad, IN) ;
PFITZMANN; BIRGIT MONIKA; (Zurich, CH) |
|
Applicant: |
Name |
City |
State |
Country |
Type |
International Business Machines Corporation |
Armonk |
NY |
US |
|
|
Assignee: |
International Business Machines
Corporation
Armonk
NY
|
Family ID: |
1000004139714 |
Appl. No.: |
16/421717 |
Filed: |
May 24, 2019 |
Current U.S.
Class: |
1/1 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06F 2201/86 20130101;
G06F 16/93 20190101; G06F 40/197 20200101; G06F 2201/80 20130101;
G06F 40/166 20200101; G06F 16/337 20190101; G06F 11/0745
20130101 |
International
Class: |
G06F 17/24 20060101
G06F017/24; G06F 16/335 20060101 G06F016/335; G06F 16/93 20060101
G06F016/93; G06F 17/22 20060101 G06F017/22; G06F 11/07 20060101
G06F011/07 |
Claims
1. A computer-implemented method comprising: configuring a
parameter of a first checker in a profile of the first checker,
wherein the parameter comprises a restriction on a content of a
modification to a document file, the document file modifiable by a
plurality of authors and capable of machine interpretation, the
first checker having a first checker owner; validating, against a
restriction enforced by the first checker according to the
parameter, a content of a first modification to the document file,
the first modification having a modification owner, wherein the
content of the first modification comprises data and a format of
that data, and wherein changing the data changes a machine
interpretation of the format; and allowing, responsive to the
validating detecting that the content of the first modification is
acceptable, the content of the first modification to be written to
the document file.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
validating, against the restriction enforced by the first checker
according to the parameter, a content of a second modification to
the document rejecting, responsive to the validating detecting an
error in the content of the second modification, the second
modification; and causing the replacing of a nonconforming
modification with a conforming operation.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a restriction modification to the first profile of the
first checker, the restriction modification comprising a
modification to a restriction enforced by the first checker
according to the parameter, wherein the modification comprises a
modification of a functionality implemented in the checker;
validating, against the document file, the second checker; and
rejecting, responsive to the validating detecting a conflict
between the restriction modification and the document file, the
restriction modification.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, further comprising:
alerting, responsive to the rejecting, the first checker owner.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
validating, against a restriction enforced by the first checker
according to the parameter, the document file; and modifying,
responsive to the validating detecting an error in the document
file, the modifying comprising returning the document file to a
previous validated state.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein the
validating is triggered by a first read from the document file.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
validating, against a restriction enforced by the first checker
according to the parameter, the document file; and generating,
responsive to the validating detecting an error in the document
file, an error alert.
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein the document
file and the first checker are packaged together in a
self-extracting archive.
9. A computer usable program product comprising one or more
computer-readable storage devices, and program instructions stored
on at least one of the one or more storage devices, the stored
program instructions comprising: program instructions to configure
a parameter of a first checker in a profile of the first checker,
wherein the parameter comprises a restriction on a content of a
modification to a document, the document file modifiable by a
plurality of authors and capable of machine interpretation, the
first checker having a first checker owner; program instructions to
validate, against a restriction enforced by the first checker
according to the parameter, a content of a first modification to
the document file, the first modification having a modification
owner, wherein the content of the first modification comprises data
and a format of that data, and wherein changing the data changes a
machine interpretation of the format; and program instructions to
allow, responsive to the validating detecting that the content of
the first modification is acceptable, the content of the first
modification to be written to the document file.
10. The computer usable program product of claim 9, further
comprising: program instructions to validate, against the
restriction enforced by the first checker according to the
parameter, a content of a second modification to the document file
dataset; and program instructions to reject, responsive to the
validating detecting an error in the content of the second
modification, the second modification; and program instructions to
cause the replacing of a nonconforming modification with a
conforming operation.
11. The computer usable program product of claim 9, further
comprising: program instructions to receive a restriction
modification to the first profile of the first checker, the
restriction modification comprising a modification to a restriction
enforced by the first checker according to the parameter, wherein
the modification comprises a modification of a functionality
implemented in the checker; program instructions to validate,
against the document file, the second checker; and program
instructions to reject, responsive to the validating detecting a
conflict between the restriction modification and the document
file, the restriction modification.
12. The computer usable program product of claim 11, further
comprising: program instructions to alert, responsive to the
rejecting, the first checker owner.
13. The computer usable program product of claim 9, further
comprising: program instructions to validate, against a restriction
enforced by the first checker according to the parameter, the
document file; and program instructions to modify, responsive to
the validating detecting an error in the document file, the
modifying comprising returning the document file to a previous
validated state.
14. The computer usable program product of claim 13, wherein the
validating is triggered by a first read from the document file.
15. The computer usable program product of claim 9, further
comprising: program instructions to validate, against a restriction
enforced by the first checker according to the parameter, the
document file; and program instructions to generate, responsive to
the validating detecting an error in the document file, an error
alert.
16. The computer usable program product of claim 15, wherein the
document file and the first checker are packaged together in a
self-extracting archive.
17. The computer usable program product of claim 9, wherein the
computer usable code is stored in a computer readable storage
device in a data processing system, and wherein the computer usable
code is transferred over a network from a remote data processing
system.
18. The computer usable program product of claim 9, wherein the
computer usable code is stored in a computer readable storage
device in a server data processing system, and wherein the computer
usable code is downloaded over a network to a remote data
processing system for use in a computer readable storage device
associated with the remote data processing system.
19. A computer system comprising one or more processors, one or
more computer-readable memories, and one or more computer-readable
storage devices, and program instructions stored on at least one of
the one or more storage devices for execution by at least one of
the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more
memories, the stored program instructions comprising: program
instructions to configure a parameter of a first checker in a
profile of the first checker, wherein the parameter comprises a
restriction on a content of a modification to a document file, the
document file modifiable by a plurality of authors and capable of
machine interpretation, the first checker having a first checker
owner; program instructions to validate, against a restriction
enforced by the first checker according to the parameter, a content
of a first modification to the document file, the first
modification having a modification owner, wherein the content of
the first modification comprises data and a format of that data,
and wherein changing the data changes a machine interpretation of
the format; and program instructions to allow, responsive to the
validating detecting that the content of the first modification is
acceptable, the content of the first modification to be written to
the document file.
20. The computer system of claim 19, further comprising: program
instructions to validate, against the restriction enforced by the
first checker according to the parameter, a content of a second
modification to the document file dataset; and program instructions
to reject, responsive to the validating detecting an error in the
content of the second modification, the second modification; and
program instructions to cause the replacing of a nonconforming
modification with a conforming operation.
Description
TECHNICAL FIELD
[0001] The present invention relates generally to a method, system,
and computer program product for managing multi-author documents.
More particularly, the present invention relates to a method,
system, and computer program product for consistency enforcement in
multi-author documents.
BACKGROUND
[0002] As used herein, a document includes any component of a set
of data stored in a computer system. As such, a document includes
both a file stored in file system and a unit of data stored in a
database. A document has one or more authors. A document author, as
used herein, is any entity that performs a write operation to a
document. A document may also have one or more consumers. A
document consumer, as used herein, is any entity that performs a
read operation to a document.
[0003] For example, a team of co-workers working together on a
project might choose to keep all project-related status information
in a common human-readable document. Some members of the team are
document consumers, because they view, but not modify, the
document. For example, one of the document consumers might read the
document to learn when the next version of the project is due for
release. Other members of team are document authors, because they
both view and modify the document. For example, one of the document
authors might update the document with an additional set of tasks
to be completed before release of the next version of the
project.
[0004] Both a document author and document consumer can be human or
non-human actors. For example, if the project co-workers are
working on the next release of a software product, an automated
system tracking bugs in a previous release of the product could act
as a document author, adding each bug as a new task for the next
release. Similarly, another automated system reporting project
status on a number of projects could act as a document consumer,
periodically accumulating this project's information into a
report.
SUMMARY
[0005] The illustrative embodiments provide a method, system, and
computer program product. An embodiment includes a method that
configures a parameter of a first checker in a profile of the first
checker, wherein the parameter comprises a restriction on contents
of a modification to a dataset, the modification comprising a write
to a portion of the dataset, the dataset modifiable by a plurality
of authors, the first checker having a first checker owner. An
embodiment validates, against a restriction enforced by the first
checker according to the parameter, a first modification to the
dataset, the first modification having a modification owner. An
embodiment allows, responsive to the validating detecting that the
first modification is acceptable, the first modification.
[0006] An embodiment includes a computer usable program product.
The computer usable program product includes one or more
computer-readable storage devices, and program instructions stored
on at least one of the one or more storage devices.
[0007] An embodiment includes a computer system. The computer
system includes one or more processors, one or more
computer-readable memories, and one or more computer-readable
storage devices, and program instructions stored on at least one of
the one or more storage devices for execution by at least one of
the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more
memories.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0008] Certain novel features believed characteristic of the
invention are set forth in the appended claims. The invention
itself, however, as well as a preferred mode of use, further
objectives and advantages thereof, will best be understood by
reference to the following detailed description of the illustrative
embodiments when read in conjunction with the accompanying
drawings, wherein:
[0009] FIG. 1 depicts a block diagram of a network of data
processing systems in which illustrative embodiments may be
implemented;
[0010] FIG. 2 depicts a block diagram of a data processing system
in which illustrative embodiments may be implemented;
[0011] FIG. 3 depicts a block diagram of an example configuration
for consistency enforcement in multi-author documents in accordance
with an illustrative embodiment;
[0012] FIG. 4 depicts a process flow diagram of the operation of an
example configuration for consistency enforcement in multi-author
documents in accordance with an illustrative embodiment;
[0013] FIG. 5 depicts an example of consistency enforcement in
multi-author documents in accordance with an illustrative
embodiment;
[0014] FIG. 6 depicts another process flow diagram of an example
configuration for consistency enforcement in multi-author documents
in accordance with an illustrative embodiment;
[0015] FIG. 7 depicts another example of consistency enforcement in
multi-author documents in accordance with an illustrative
embodiment;
[0016] FIG. 8 depicts a flowchart of an example process for
consistency enforcement in multi-author documents in accordance
with an illustrative embodiment; and
[0017] FIG. 9 depicts a flowchart of an example process for
consistency enforcement in multi-author documents in accordance
with an illustrative embodiment.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0018] The illustrative embodiments recognize, when multiple
authors and consumers modify a common document, different authors
and consumers have different requirements for the data in that
document. If the document does not meet a requirement, a document
consumer may be confused. For example, if a document contains task
assignments for co-workers on a project, but a task assignment is
missing a due date, the consumer assigned to perform that task will
not know when the task is due. In addition, a document cannot meet
requirements that directly conflict with each other. For example,
one consumer of the example task-assignment document might require
that the document be only in English, while another consumer of the
same document might require that the document be in only
Chinese.
[0019] The illustrative embodiments recognize that problems
involving multiple, potentially conflicting document requirements
increase as the document size and the number of document authors or
consumers grows. For example, identifying that one line in a
document specifies that a variable default be 0, while another line
specifies that the same variable's default is -1, is an easier task
when the document itself contains twenty lines than when the
document contains twenty thousand lines.
[0020] The illustrative embodiments recognize that problems
involving multiple, potentially conflicting document requirements
also increase when a multi-author document is authored or consumed
by non-human entities. For example, a document in a markup language
such as Extensible Markup Language (XML) or Hypertext Markup
Language (HTML), a file format containing data objects such as
JavaScript Object Notation (JSON), or source code for a computer
program, is human-readable, but describes structured information in
a form that is also machine-readable. However, non-human consumers
may take unexpected or undesired actions when such a document is
not in an expected format, or a value in such a document does not
have a valid value or type. For example, if a machine consumer is
expecting a Boolean value (a value that can only be true or false)
but receives a real number instead, the consumer of the value could
act erroneously.
[0021] The illustrative embodiments also recognize that checking
for conformance with, and consistency among, the requirements of
multiple authors of a document is conveniently done when processing
a modification to the document. At this time, if a modification
does not conform to one or more requirements, an author of the
modification can conveniently replace the modification with one
that does conform. As well, there is no opportunity for an error
caused by a nonconforming modification to propagate through
document consumers. Consequently, the illustrative embodiments
recognize a need for consistency checks of a multi-author document
when the document is created or modified.
[0022] The illustrative embodiments recognize that the presently
available tools or solutions do not address these needs or provide
adequate solutions for these needs. The illustrative embodiments
used to describe the invention generally address and solve the
above-described problems and other problems related to consistency
enforcement in multi-author documents.
[0023] An embodiment can be implemented as a software application.
The application implementing an embodiment can be configured as a
modification of an existing document management system (including a
file system or database management system), as a separate
application that operates in conjunction with an existing document
management system, a standalone application, or some combination
thereof.
[0024] Particularly, some illustrative embodiments provide a method
by which consistency checks of a multi-author document are
performed when the document is created or modified. The method also
provides for consistency checking of the consistency checks
themselves.
[0025] An embodiment maintains a profile of at least one checker.
The profile includes one or more parameters, where a parameter is a
restriction on contents of a modification to a document. Within the
profile, an embodiment configures at least one parameter. A checker
enforces a restriction on a modification to a document. Each
checker has an owner responsible for maintaining the checker and
resolving alerts the checker generates.
[0026] In one embodiment, a base form of a checker has the ability
to interpret a particular type or format of document. For example,
one base form is able to interpret a file in one of the Microsoft
Office formats, such as .docx (for text) or .xlsx (for a
spreadsheet). (Microsoft Office is a registered trademark of
Microsoft, Inc. in the United States and other countries.) Another
example base form is able to interpret a file written in a markup
language such as HTML or XML. A third example base form is able to
interpret data stored in a database. From the base form, a checker
author can adapt a checker to specific needs. For example, a
checker author could adapt an XML checker to check that a
particular variable has a value of a particular type, such as an
integer or a positive integer. In another embodiment, a checker
author does not use a base form, but instead configures a checker
using another suitable technique.
[0027] An embodiment can configure a parameter of a checker to
apply to all versions of a document, or only specific versions. An
embodiment can configure a parameter of a checker as usable within
a particular date or time range, before or after a particular date
or time, or without a time restriction. An embodiment can configure
a parameter of a checker to apply to a specific document, to all
documents having a specific characteristic (e.g. all documents in a
specific area of a file system, or all documents with a .doc file
extension), to all documents used by a specific application (e.g. a
project management application), or to all documents a system
manages.
[0028] An embodiment manages checkers. Managing checkers includes
storing one or more checkers, managing ownership information and
profile information for a checker, managing time, version, or
document specifications for a checker, and managing other
information relating to using a checker.
[0029] When a document author attempts a write to a document, an
embodiment determines whether a checker is associated with the
document. If so, an embodiment validates the modification to the
document against a restriction enforced by a checker associated
with the document. Each modification has a modification owner,
responsible for resolving alerts generated by the modification.
[0030] An embodiment is configurable to run checker validations in
any order. One embodiment runs checkers in chronological order,
based on each checker's date of last modification, with the oldest
checker run first. Another embodiment runs checkers in reverse
chronological order, with the newest checker run first. Another
embodiment runs checkers in an order specified by a checker owner.
For example, a checker owner might specify that a particular
checker should always run first. Another embodiment launches a set
of checkers at one time and executes the set in parallel. Other
orders of execution for checkers, and combinations of orders, are
also possible and contemplated within the scope of the illustrative
embodiments.
[0031] If no checker reports an error in the modification, an
embodiment stores the modified document. If, instead, a checker
reports an error in the modification, an embodiment rejects the
modification. In a rejection, an embodiment does not store the
modified document, instead keeping the document in its
pre-modification state. As well, an embodiment alerts both the
modification owner and the owner of each checker that reported an
error. Once the modification owner and checker owner receive
alerts, they can resolve the conflict outside the scope of the
embodiments.
[0032] For example, consider a modification to an example document
that changes the value of a variable, "optimizable", from true to
false. This document currently has three example checkers. Checker
1 includes a parameter enforcing a restriction that "optimizable"
must be either true or false. Checker 2 includes a parameter
enforcing a restriction that the numerical value for another
variable, "offeringId", must be in a list of valid identification
values. Checker 3 includes a parameter enforcing a restriction that
the value of another variable, "displayOrder", must be a number.
Because the modification passes all three example checkers, an
embodiment accepts the modification.
[0033] For the same example document and checkers, another
modification changes the value of the "displayOrder" variable to
true. This time, checker 3 fails, because true is not a number in
this example system. As a result, an embodiment generates an alert,
to both the modification owner and the owner of checker 3, that the
modification is attempting to set "displayOrder" to an invalid
value.
[0034] Another embodiment validates a modification to a document
against a restriction enforced by a checker associated with the
document after the modified document is written. If no checker
reports an error in the modification, an embodiment considers the
modification to be valid. If, instead, a checker reports an error
in the modification, an embodiment rejects the modification by
restoring the document to its pre-modification state. As well, an
embodiment alerts both the modification owner and the owner of each
checker that reported an error. Once the modification owner and
checker owner receive alerts, they can resolve the conflict outside
the scope of the embodiments.
[0035] When a document consumer attempts a read of the document, an
embodiment determines whether a checker is associated with the
document. If so, an embodiment validates the document against one
or more configured checkers. If no checker reports an error, an
embodiment supplies the document to the consumer. If, instead, a
checker reports an error in the document, an embodiment returns the
document to a previous, validated state in which no checker reports
an error. Because a document is validated at each modification, and
hence only a validated document can be written, a read error should
not occur. However, checking a document on a read as well as a
write is an additional opportunity to catch and correct an
unexpected error condition if it does occur.
[0036] An embodiment is also usable for consistency checking
extracted data from an archive. In one embodiment, an archive of
documents, and any checkers for the archive, are packaged together.
When a document consumer attempts a read of a document from the
archive, an embodiment uses one or more checkers packaged with the
archive to validate the document. If no checker reports an error,
an embodiment supplies the document to the consumer. If, instead, a
checker reports an error in the document, an embodiment raises an
alert and discards the document extraction.
[0037] A profile of a checker is also modifiable. In particular, a
restriction enforced by a checker can be modified. When a checker
owner attempts to modify a checker, an embodiment validates the
checker being modified against documents to which the checker
applies. Because each document has previously passed the
already-existing checkers, validating against the document
substitutes for validating against the set of already-existing
checkers.
[0038] If the checker being modified does not report an error, an
embodiment stores the modified checker and adds the modified
checker to the set of checkers used to validate later document
modifications. If, instead, the checker being modified reports an
error, an embodiment rejects the checker being modified and alerts
the owner of the checker being modified. Once the owner receives
alerts, the conflict can be resolved outside the scope of the
embodiments.
[0039] For example, consider an example new checker intended to
check an example document. This document currently has one example
checker that enforces a restriction that the value of a variable in
the document, "displayOrder", must be a number. The example new
checker enforces a restriction that the value of another variable
in the document, "optimizable", must be either true or false.
Because, in the document, "optimizable" is set to true, meeting the
new restriction, an embodiment accepts the new example checker.
[0040] Continuing the example, a second new example checker is also
intended to check the example document. The second new checker
enforces a restriction that the "displayOrder" variable must be a
string. This time, because the existing checker specifies that
"displayOrder" must be a number, in the document "displayOrder" is
set to a number. Because a variable cannot be both a number and a
string at the same time, the validation fails. As a result, an
embodiment alerts the author of the second new example checker.
[0041] The manner of consistency enforcement in multi-author
documents described herein is unavailable in the presently
available methods in the technological field of endeavor pertaining
to multi-author document management. A method of an embodiment
described herein, when implemented to execute on a device or data
processing system, comprises substantial advancement of the
functionality of that device or data processing system in
performing consistency checks on a multi-author document when the
document is created or modified. As well, the consistency checks
themselves are also checked for conflicts.
[0042] The illustrative embodiments are described with respect to
certain types of documents, checkers, document managers,
validations, devices, data processing systems, environments,
components, and applications only as examples. Any specific
manifestations of these and other similar artifacts are not
intended to be limiting to the invention. Any suitable
manifestation of these and other similar artifacts can be selected
within the scope of the illustrative embodiments.
[0043] Furthermore, the illustrative embodiments may be implemented
with respect to any type of data, data source, or access to a data
source over a data network. Any type of data storage device may
provide the data to an embodiment of the invention, either locally
at a data processing system or over a data network, within the
scope of the invention. Where an embodiment is described using a
mobile device, any type of data storage device suitable for use
with the mobile device may provide the data to such embodiment,
either locally at the mobile device or over a data network, within
the scope of the illustrative embodiments.
[0044] The illustrative embodiments are described using specific
code, designs, architectures, protocols, layouts, schematics, and
tools only as examples and are not limiting to the illustrative
embodiments. Furthermore, the illustrative embodiments are
described in some instances using particular software, tools, and
data processing environments only as an example for the clarity of
the description. The illustrative embodiments may be used in
conjunction with other comparable or similarly purposed structures,
systems, applications, or architectures. For example, other
comparable mobile devices, structures, systems, applications, or
architectures therefor, may be used in conjunction with such
embodiment of the invention within the scope of the invention. An
illustrative embodiment may be implemented in hardware, software,
or a combination thereof.
[0045] The examples in this disclosure are used only for the
clarity of the description and are not limiting to the illustrative
embodiments. Additional data, operations, actions, tasks,
activities, and manipulations will be conceivable from this
disclosure and the same are contemplated within the scope of the
illustrative embodiments.
[0046] Any advantages listed herein are only examples and are not
intended to be limiting to the illustrative embodiments. Additional
or different advantages may be realized by specific illustrative
embodiments. Furthermore, a particular illustrative embodiment may
have some, all, or none of the advantages listed above.
[0047] With reference to the figures and in particular with
reference to FIGS. 1 and 2, these figures are example diagrams of
data processing environments in which illustrative embodiments may
be implemented. FIGS. 1 and 2 are only examples and are not
intended to assert or imply any limitation with regard to the
environments in which different embodiments may be implemented. A
particular implementation may make many modifications to the
depicted environments based on the following description.
[0048] FIG. 1 depicts a block diagram of a network of data
processing systems in which illustrative embodiments may be
implemented. Data processing environment 100 is a network of
computers in which the illustrative embodiments may be implemented.
Data processing environment 100 includes network 102. Network 102
is the medium used to provide communications links between various
devices and computers connected together within data processing
environment 100. Network 102 may include connections, such as wire,
wireless communication links, or fiber optic cables.
[0049] Clients or servers are only example roles of certain data
processing systems connected to network 102 and are not intended to
exclude other configurations or roles for these data processing
systems. Server 104 and server 106 couple to network 102 along with
storage unit 108. Software applications may execute on any computer
in data processing environment 100. Clients 110, 112, and 114 are
also coupled to network 102. A data processing system, such as
server 104 or 106, or client 110, 112, or 114 may contain data and
may have software applications or software tools executing
thereon.
[0050] Only as an example, and without implying any limitation to
such architecture, FIG. 1 depicts certain components that are
usable in an example implementation of an embodiment. For example,
servers 104 and 106, and clients 110, 112, 114, are depicted as
servers and clients only as example and not to imply a limitation
to a client-server architecture. As another example, an embodiment
can be distributed across several data processing systems and a
data network as shown, whereas another embodiment can be
implemented on a single data processing system within the scope of
the illustrative embodiments. Data processing systems 104, 106,
110, 112, and 114 also represent example nodes in a cluster,
partitions, and other configurations suitable for implementing an
embodiment.
[0051] Device 132 is an example of a device described herein. For
example, device 132 can take the form of a smartphone, a tablet
computer, a laptop computer, client 110 in a stationary or a
portable form, a wearable computing device, or any other suitable
device. Any software application described as executing in another
data processing system in FIG. 1 can be configured to execute in
device 132 in a similar manner. Any data or information stored or
produced in another data processing system in FIG. 1 can be
configured to be stored or produced in device 132 in a similar
manner.
[0052] Application 105 implements an embodiment described herein.
Application 105 can run in any of servers 104 and 106, clients 110,
112, 114, and device 132. Application 105 stores documents and
checkers in, for example, storage unit 108, or another
location.
[0053] Servers 104 and 106, storage unit 108, and clients 110, 112,
and 114, and device 132 may couple to network 102 using wired
connections, wireless communication protocols, or other suitable
data connectivity. Clients 110, 112, and 114 may be, for example,
personal computers or network computers.
[0054] In the depicted example, server 104 may provide data, such
as boot files, operating system images, and applications to clients
110, 112, and 114. Clients 110, 112, and 114 may be clients to
server 104 in this example. Clients 110, 112, 114, or some
combination thereof, may include their own data, boot files,
operating system images, and applications. Data processing
environment 100 may include additional servers, clients, and other
devices that are not shown.
[0055] In the depicted example, data processing environment 100 may
be the Internet. Network 102 may represent a collection of networks
and gateways that use the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet
Protocol (TCP/IP) and other protocols to communicate with one
another. At the heart of the Internet is a backbone of data
communication links between major nodes or host computers,
including thousands of commercial, governmental, educational, and
other computer systems that route data and messages. Of course,
data processing environment 100 also may be implemented as a number
of different types of networks, such as for example, an intranet, a
local area network (LAN), or a wide area network (WAN). FIG. 1 is
intended as an example, and not as an architectural limitation for
the different illustrative embodiments.
[0056] Among other uses, data processing environment 100 may be
used for implementing a client-server environment in which the
illustrative embodiments may be implemented. A client-server
environment enables software applications and data to be
distributed across a network such that an application functions by
using the interactivity between a client data processing system and
a server data processing system. Data processing environment 100
may also employ a service oriented architecture where interoperable
software components distributed across a network may be packaged
together as coherent business applications. Data processing
environment 100 may also take the form of a cloud, and employ a
cloud computing model of service delivery for enabling convenient,
on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing
resources (e.g. networks, network bandwidth, servers, processing,
memory, storage, applications, virtual machines, and services) that
can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management
effort or interaction with a provider of the service.
[0057] With reference to FIG. 2, this figure depicts a block
diagram of a data processing system in which illustrative
embodiments may be implemented. Data processing system 200 is an
example of a computer, such as servers 104 and 106, or clients 110,
112, and 114 in FIG. 1, or another type of device in which computer
usable program code or instructions implementing the processes may
be located for the illustrative embodiments.
[0058] Data processing system 200 is also representative of a data
processing system or a configuration therein, such as data
processing system 132 in FIG. 1 in which computer usable program
code or instructions implementing the processes of the illustrative
embodiments may be located. Data processing system 200 is described
as a computer only as an example, without being limited thereto.
Implementations in the form of other devices, such as device 132 in
FIG. 1, may modify data processing system 200, such as by adding a
touch interface, and even eliminate certain depicted components
from data processing system 200 without departing from the general
description of the operations and functions of data processing
system 200 described herein.
[0059] In the depicted example, data processing system 200 employs
a hub architecture including North Bridge and memory controller hub
(NB/MCH) 202 and South Bridge and input/output (I/O) controller hub
(SB/ICH) 204. Processing unit 206, main memory 208, and graphics
processor 210 are coupled to North Bridge and memory controller hub
(NB/MCH) 202. Processing unit 206 may contain one or more
processors and may be implemented using one or more heterogeneous
processor systems. Processing unit 206 may be a multi-core
processor. Graphics processor 210 may be coupled to NB/MCH 202
through an accelerated graphics port (AGP) in certain
implementations.
[0060] In the depicted example, local area network (LAN) adapter
212 is coupled to South Bridge and I/O controller hub (SB/ICH) 204.
Audio adapter 216, keyboard and mouse adapter 220, modem 222, read
only memory (ROM) 224, universal serial bus (USB) and other ports
232, and PCI/PCIe devices 234 are coupled to South Bridge and I/O
controller hub 204 through bus 238. Hard disk drive (HDD) or
solid-state drive (SSD) 226 and CD-ROM 230 are coupled to South
Bridge and I/O controller hub 204 through bus 240. PCI/PCIe devices
234 may include, for example, Ethernet adapters, add-in cards, and
PC cards for notebook computers. PCI uses a card bus controller,
while PCIe does not. ROM 224 may be, for example, a flash binary
input/output system (BIOS). Hard disk drive 226 and CD-ROM 230 may
use, for example, an integrated drive electronics (IDE), serial
advanced technology attachment (SATA) interface, or variants such
as external-SATA (eSATA) and micro-SATA (mSATA). A super I/O (SIO)
device 236 may be coupled to South Bridge and I/O controller hub
(SB/ICH) 204 through bus 238.
[0061] Memories, such as main memory 208, ROM 224, or flash memory
(not shown), are some examples of computer usable storage devices.
Hard disk drive or solid state drive 226, CD-ROM 230, and other
similarly usable devices are some examples of computer usable
storage devices including a computer usable storage medium.
[0062] An operating system runs on processing unit 206. The
operating system coordinates and provides control of various
components within data processing system 200 in FIG. 2. The
operating system may be a commercially available operating system
for any type of computing platform, including but not limited to
server systems, personal computers, and mobile devices. An object
oriented or other type of programming system may operate in
conjunction with the operating system and provide calls to the
operating system from programs or applications executing on data
processing system 200.
[0063] Instructions for the operating system, the object-oriented
programming system, and applications or programs, such as
application 105 in FIG. 1, are located on storage devices, such as
in the form of code 226A on hard disk drive 226, and may be loaded
into at least one of one or more memories, such as main memory 208,
for execution by processing unit 206. The processes of the
illustrative embodiments may be performed by processing unit 206
using computer implemented instructions, which may be located in a
memory, such as, for example, main memory 208, read only memory
224, or in one or more peripheral devices.
[0064] Furthermore, in one case, code 226A may be downloaded over
network 201A from remote system 201B, where similar code 201C is
stored on a storage device 201D. in another case, code 226A may be
downloaded over network 201A to remote system 201B, where
downloaded code 201C is stored on a storage device 201D.
[0065] The hardware in FIGS. 1-2 may vary depending on the
implementation. Other internal hardware or peripheral devices, such
as flash memory, equivalent non-volatile memory, or optical disk
drives and the like, may be used in addition to or in place of the
hardware depicted in FIGS. 1-2. In addition, the processes of the
illustrative embodiments may be applied to a multiprocessor data
processing system.
[0066] In some illustrative examples, data processing system 200
may be a personal digital assistant (PDA), which is generally
configured with flash memory to provide non-volatile memory for
storing operating system files and/or user-generated data. A bus
system may comprise one or more buses, such as a system bus, an I/O
bus, and a PCI bus. Of course, the bus system may be implemented
using any type of communications fabric or architecture that
provides for a transfer of data between different components or
devices attached to the fabric or architecture.
[0067] A communications unit may include one or more devices used
to transmit and receive data, such as a modem or a network adapter.
A memory may be, for example, main memory 208 or a cache, such as
the cache found in North Bridge and memory controller hub 202. A
processing unit may include one or more processors or CPUs.
[0068] The depicted examples in FIGS. 1-2 and above-described
examples are not meant to imply architectural limitations. For
example, data processing system 200 also may be a tablet computer,
laptop computer, or telephone device in addition to taking the form
of a mobile or wearable device.
[0069] Where a computer or data processing system is described as a
virtual machine, a virtual device, or a virtual component, the
virtual machine, virtual device, or the virtual component operates
in the manner of data processing system 200 using virtualized
manifestation of some or all components depicted in data processing
system 200. For example, in a virtual machine, virtual device, or
virtual component, processing unit 206 is manifested as a
virtualized instance of all or some number of hardware processing
units 206 available in a host data processing system, main memory
208 is manifested as a virtualized instance of all or some portion
of main memory 208 that may be available in the host data
processing system, and disk 226 is manifested as a virtualized
instance of all or some portion of disk 226 that may be available
in the host data processing system. The host data processing system
in such cases is represented by data processing system 200.
[0070] With reference to FIG. 3, this figure depicts a block
diagram of an example configuration for consistency enforcement in
multi-author documents in accordance with an illustrative
embodiment. Application 300 is an example of application 105 in
FIG. 1 and executes in any of servers 104 and 106, clients 110,
112, 114, and device 132 in FIG. 1.
[0071] Checker management module 310 configures, within a profile
of at least one checker, one or more parameters enforcing a
restriction on contents of a modification to a document. Module 310
can also include base forms of one or more checkers, for use in
developing a checker specific to an author's particular need.
Module 310 also manages checkers, including storing one or more
checkers, managing ownership information and profile information
for a checker, managing time, version, or document specifications
for a checker, and managing other information relating to using a
checker.
[0072] Data management module 320 intercepts reads and writes to a
document. When a document author attempts a write to a document,
module 320 triggers checker association module 330, which
determines whether a checker is associated with the document. If
so, consistency checker 340 uses one or more configured checkers to
validate the modification to the document.
[0073] If consistency checker 340 reports that the modification has
passed configured checks, data management module 320 stores the
modified document. If, instead, consistency checker 340 reports an
error in the modification, data management module 320 rejects the
modification. As well, conflict alert module 350 alerts both the
modification owner and the owner of each checker that reported an
error.
[0074] When a document consumer attempts a read of the document,
module 320 triggers checker association module 330 to determine
whether a checker is associated with the document. If so,
consistency checker 340 uses one or more configured checkers to
validate the document. If consistency checker 340 reports that the
document has passed configured checks, module 320 supplies the
document to the consumer. If, instead, consistency checker 340
reports an error in the document, module 320 returns the document
to a previous, validated state in which no checker had reported an
error.
[0075] When a checker owner attempts to modify a checker, checker
management module 310 triggers consistency checker 340 to validate
the modification against the document being checked. If consistency
checker 340 does not report an error, module 310 stores the
modified checker and adds the modified checker to the set of
checkers used to validate document modifications.
[0076] If, instead, consistency checker 340 reports an error,
module 310 rejects the checker being modified. As well, conflict
alert module 350 alerts the owner of the checker being
modified.
[0077] With reference to FIG. 4, this figure depicts a process flow
diagram of the operation of an example configuration for
consistency enforcement in multi-author documents in accordance
with an illustrative embodiment. Diagram 400 can be implemented
using application 300 in FIG. 3.
[0078] In step 402, a read of a multi-author document is requested.
In step 404, the application uses checkers associated with the
document to validate the document. If one or more checkers
determines that there is an error, in step 412 the application
generates an alert. If the document passes the checkers, in step
406 the document is edited.
[0079] When an attempt is made to write the edited document back to
storage, the application again uses checkers associated with the
document to validate the document. If one or more checkers
determines that there is an error, the application discards the
edits, and in step 412 the application generates an alert. If the
document passes the checkers, in step 410 the updated document is
stored.
[0080] With reference to FIG. 5, this figure depicts an example of
consistency enforcement in multi-author documents in accordance
with an illustrative embodiment. The example can be implemented
using application 300 in FIG. 3.
[0081] Data 510 is a portion of an example document subject to
consistency enforcement. Data 510 currently has three example
checkers. Checker 522 enforces a restriction that "optimizable"
must be either true or false. Checker 524 enforces a restriction
that the numerical value for another variable, "offeringId", must
be in a list of valid identification values. Checker 526 enforces a
restriction that the value of another variable, "displayOrder",
must be a number.
[0082] New data 512 is a modification to data 510 that changes the
value of a variable, "optimizable", from true to false. Because the
modification passes all three example checkers, the application
accepts the modification.
[0083] New data 514 is a modification to data 510 that changes the
value of the "displayOrder" variable to true. This time, checker
526 fails, because true is not a number in this example system. As
a result, the application generates an alert, to both the
modification owner and the owner of checker 526, that the
modification is attempting to set "displayOrder" to an invalid
value.
[0084] With reference to FIG. 6, this figure depicts another
process flow diagram of an example configuration for consistency
enforcement in multi-author documents in accordance with an
illustrative embodiment. Diagram 600 can be implemented using
application 300 in FIG. 3.
[0085] Self-extracting archive 602 includes an archive of
documents, and any checkers for the archive, packaged together.
When a document consumer attempts a read of a document from the
archive, the application, in step 604, uses one or more checkers
packaged with archive 602 to validate the document. If no checker
reports an error, the application supplies the document to the
consumer. If, instead, a checker reports an error in the document,
in step 606 the application raises an alert and discards the
document extraction.
[0086] With reference to FIG. 7, this figure depicts another
example of consistency enforcement in multi-author documents in
accordance with an illustrative embodiment. The example can be
implemented using application 300 in FIG. 3. Data 510 and checker
526 are the same as Data 510 and checker 526 in FIG. 5.
[0087] New checker 712 is intended to check data 510, an example
document. Data 510 currently has checker 526, which enforces a
restriction that the value of a variable in the document,
"displayOrder", must be a number. New checker 712 enforces a
restriction that the value of another variable in data 510,
"optimizable", must be either true or false. Because, in data 510,
"optimizable" is set to true, meeting the new restriction, the
application accepts new checker 712.
[0088] New checker 714 is also intended to check data 510. New
checker 714 enforces a restriction that the "displayOrder" variable
must be a string. This time, because checker 526 already specifies
that "displayOrder" must be a number, in data 510 "displayOrder" is
set to a number. As a result, because a variable cannot be both a
number and a string at the same time, the validation fails, and the
application alerts the author of checker 714.
[0089] With reference to FIG. 8, this figure depicts a flowchart of
an example process for consistency enforcement in multi-author
documents in accordance with an illustrative embodiment. Process
800 can be implemented in application 300 in FIG. 3.
[0090] In block 802, the application receives an attempt to read or
write a multi-author dataset such as a document. In block 804, the
application runs one or more installed checkers against the data
being read or written. In block 806, the application determines
whether a checker reported an error. If not ("NO" path of block
806), in block 808 the application completes the data read or
write, as appropriate, then ends. If yes ("YES" path of block 806),
in block 810 the application determines whether a read or a write
is being processed. For a read ("NO" path of block 810), in block
812 the application rolls the dataset back to the last known good
state, then ends. For a write ("YES" path of block 810), in block
814 the application alerts the author of the current write
operation and the owner of the checker reporting an error to
resolve the identified problem, then ends.
[0091] With reference to FIG. 9, this figure depicts a flowchart of
an example process for consistency enforcement in multi-author
documents in accordance with an illustrative embodiment. Process
900 can be implemented in application 300 in FIG. 3.
[0092] In block 902, the application receives an attempt to write a
checker for a unit of a multi-author dataset. In block 904, the
application validates the checker currently being processed against
the dataset. In block 906, the application determines whether the
checker reported an error. If not ("NO" path of block 906), in
block 908 the application adds the current checker to the set of
checkers for the dataset, then ends. If yes ("YES" path of block
906), in block 910 the application alerts the author of the current
checker to resolve the identified problem, then ends.
[0093] Thus, a computer implemented method, system or apparatus,
and computer program product are provided in the illustrative
embodiments for consistency enforcement in multi-author documents
and other related features, functions, or operations. Where an
embodiment or a portion thereof is described with respect to a type
of device, the computer implemented method, system or apparatus,
the computer program product, or a portion thereof, are adapted or
configured for use with a suitable and comparable manifestation of
that type of device.
[0094] Where an embodiment is described as implemented in an
application, the delivery of the application in a Software as a
Service (SaaS) model is contemplated within the scope of the
illustrative embodiments. In a SaaS model, the capability of the
application implementing an embodiment is provided to a user by
executing the application in a cloud infrastructure. The user can
access the application using a variety of client devices through a
thin client interface such as a web browser (e.g., web-based
e-mail), or other light-weight client-applications. The user does
not manage or control the underlying cloud infrastructure including
the network, servers, operating systems, or the storage of the
cloud infrastructure. In some cases, the user may not even manage
or control the capabilities of the SaaS application. In some other
cases, the SaaS implementation of the application may permit a
possible exception of limited user-specific application
configuration settings.
[0095] The present invention may be a system, a method, and/or a
computer program product at any possible technical detail level of
integration. The computer program product may include a computer
readable storage medium (or media) having computer readable program
instructions thereon for causing a processor to carry out aspects
of the present invention.
[0096] The computer readable storage medium can be a tangible
device that can retain and store instructions for use by an
instruction execution device. The computer readable storage medium
may be, for example, but is not limited to, an electronic storage
device, a magnetic storage device, an optical storage device, an
electromagnetic storage device, a semiconductor storage device, or
any suitable combination of the foregoing. A non-exhaustive list of
more specific examples of the computer readable storage medium
includes the following: a portable computer diskette, a hard disk,
a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an erasable
programmable read-only memory (EPROM or Flash memory), a static
random access memory (SRAM), a portable compact disc read-only
memory (CD-ROM), a digital versatile disk (DVD), a memory stick, a
floppy disk, a mechanically encoded device such as punch-cards or
raised structures in a groove having instructions recorded thereon,
and any suitable combination of the foregoing. A computer readable
storage medium, as used herein, is not to be construed as being
transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely
propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves
propagating through a waveguide or other transmission media (e.g.,
light pulses passing through a fiber-optic cable), or electrical
signals transmitted through a wire.
[0097] Computer readable program instructions described herein can
be downloaded to respective computing/processing devices from a
computer readable storage medium or to an external computer or
external storage device via a network, for example, the Internet, a
local area network, a wide area network and/or a wireless network.
The network may comprise copper transmission cables, optical
transmission fibers, wireless transmission, routers, firewalls,
switches, gateway computers and/or edge servers. A network adapter
card or network interface in each computing/processing device
receives computer readable program instructions from the network
and forwards the computer readable program instructions for storage
in a computer readable storage medium within the respective
computing/processing device.
[0098] Computer readable program instructions for carrying out
operations of the present invention may be assembler instructions,
instruction-set-architecture (ISA) instructions, machine
instructions, machine dependent instructions, microcode, firmware
instructions, state-setting data, configuration data for integrated
circuitry, or either source code or object code written in any
combination of one or more programming languages, including an
object oriented programming language such as Smalltalk, C++, or the
like, and procedural programming languages, such as the "C"
programming language or similar programming languages. The computer
readable program instructions may execute entirely on the user's
computer, partly on the user's computer, as a stand-alone software
package, partly on the user's computer and partly on a remote
computer or entirely on the remote computer or server. In the
latter scenario, the remote computer may be connected to the user's
computer through any type of network, including a local area
network (LAN) or a wide area network (WAN), or the connection may
be made to an external computer (for example, through the Internet
using an Internet Service Provider). In some embodiments,
electronic circuitry including, for example, programmable logic
circuitry, field-programmable gate arrays (FPGA), or programmable
logic arrays (PLA) may execute the computer readable program
instructions by utilizing state information of the computer
readable program instructions to personalize the electronic
circuitry, in order to perform aspects of the present
invention.
[0099] Aspects of the present invention are described herein with
reference to flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams of
methods, apparatus (systems), and computer program products
according to embodiments of the invention. It will be understood
that each block of the flowchart illustrations and/or block
diagrams, and combinations of blocks in the flowchart illustrations
and/or block diagrams, can be implemented by computer readable
program instructions.
[0100] These computer readable program instructions may be provided
to a processor of a general purpose computer, special purpose
computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to
produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via
the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing
apparatus, create means for implementing the functions/acts
specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.
These computer readable program instructions may also be stored in
a computer readable storage medium that can direct a computer, a
programmable data processing apparatus, and/or other devices to
function in a particular manner, such that the computer readable
storage medium having instructions stored therein comprises an
article of manufacture including instructions which implement
aspects of the function/act specified in the flowchart and/or block
diagram block or blocks.
[0101] The computer readable program instructions may also be
loaded onto a computer, other programmable data processing
apparatus, or other device to cause a series of operational steps
to be performed on the computer, other programmable apparatus or
other device to produce a computer implemented process, such that
the instructions which execute on the computer, other programmable
apparatus, or other device implement the functions/acts specified
in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.
[0102] The flowchart and block diagrams in the Figures illustrate
the architecture, functionality, and operation of possible
implementations of systems, methods, and computer program products
according to various embodiments of the present invention. In this
regard, each block in the flowchart or block diagrams may represent
a module, segment, or portion of instructions, which comprises one
or more executable instructions for implementing the specified
logical function(s). In some alternative implementations, the
functions noted in the blocks may occur out of the order noted in
the Figures. For example, two blocks shown in succession may, in
fact, be executed substantially concurrently, or the blocks may
sometimes be executed in the reverse order, depending upon the
functionality involved. It will also be noted that each block of
the block diagrams and/or flowchart illustration, and combinations
of blocks in the block diagrams and/or flowchart illustration, can
be implemented by special purpose hardware-based systems that
perform the specified functions or acts or carry out combinations
of special purpose hardware and computer instructions.
* * * * *